Elson-vernon Knitters Ltd v. Sino-indo-american Spinners Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22 OF 1972

________________________

________________________

Coram: Full Court (Hon. Blair-Kerr, S.P.J., Hon. Huggins and Hon. McMullin, JJ.)

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Blair-Kerr, S.P.J.:

1.  I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by my Brother, Mr. Justice Huggins. There is only one point on which I would wish to add a word or two. Mr. Mills-Owens cited this passage from the judgment of Lord Lindley, M.R., in Thomson v. Clanmorris^([1]):–

“In construing s.3 ...... as indeed in construing any other statutory enactment, regard must be had not only to the words used, but to the history of the Act, and the reasons which led to its being passed. You must look at the mischief which had to be cured as well as the cure provided.”

Farwell, L.J., put the matter in somewhat different language in R. v. West Riding County Council^([2]), where he said (p.716):–

“The mischief sought to be cured by an Act of Parliament must be sought in the Act itself. Although it may perhaps be legitimate to call history in aid to show what facts existed to bring about a statute the inferences to be drawn therefrom are exceedingly slight.”

In Eastman Photographic Materials Co. v. Comptroller General of Patents^([3]), Lord Halsbury, when referring to the report of a commission appointed to inquire into the duties etc. of the Patent Office under an Act earlier in date than the Act under construction, said:–

“... no more accurate source of information as to what was the evil or defect which the Act of Parliament now under construction was intended to remedy could be imagined than the report of that commission.”

With respect I entirely agree; and I hope that nothing I said in In re SHANG Kiang-yuen, a patient^([4]) and in R. v. TSENG Ping-yu^([5]) may lead any person to think otherwise. A court may legitimately look at the Objects and Reasons attached to a Bill presented to the Legislative Council because it is a source of information as to what was the evil or defect, if any, which the new enactment was intended to remedy. But if the language of the enactment itself is clear and unambiguous, history cannot alter the plain meaning of such language.

Mills-Owens (Deacons) for appellant

Bokhary (Johnson, Stokes & Master) for respondent

([1]) [1900] 1 Ch. p.718 at p.725

([2]) [1906] 2 K.B. p.676 at p.716

([3])[[1898] A.C. p.571

([4]) [1968] H.K.L.R. p.192 at p.201

([5]) [1969] H.K.L.R. p.304 at pp.320/1